Multi‐institutional dosimetric and geometric commissioning of image‐guided small animal irradiators
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the dosimetric and geometric properties of a commercial x-ray based image-guided small animal irradiation system, installed at three institutions and to establish a complete and broadly accessible commissioning procedure. METHODS: The system consists of a 225 kVp x-ray tube with fixed field size collimators ranging from 1 to 44 mm equivalent diameter. The x-ray tube is mounted opposite a flat-panel imaging detector, on a C-arm gantry with 360° coplanar rotation. Each institution performed a full commissioning of their system, including half-value layer, absolute dosimetry, relative dosimetry (profiles, percent depth dose, and relative output factors), and characterization of the system geometry and mechanical flex of the x-ray tube and detector. Dosimetric measurements were made using Farmer-type ionization chambers, small volume air and liquid ionization chambers, and radiochromic film. The results between the three institutions were compared. RESULTS: At 225 kVp, with 0.3 mm Cu added filtration, the first half value layer ranged from 0.9 to 1.0 mm Cu. The dose-rate in-air for a 40 × 40 mm(2) field size, at a source-to-axis distance of 30 cm, ranged from 3.5 to 3.9 Gy/min between the three institutions. For field sizes between 2.5 mm diameter and 40 × 40 mm(2), the differences between percent depth dose curves up to depths of 3.5 cm were between 1% and 4% on average, with the maximum difference being 7%. The profiles agreed very well for fields >5 mm diameter. The relative output factors differed by up to 6% for fields larger than 10 mm diameter, but differed by up to 49% for fields ≤5 mm diameter. The mechanical characteristics of the system (source-to-axis and source-to-detector distances) were consistent between all three institutions. There were substantial differences in the flex of each system. CONCLUSIONS: With the exception of the half-value layer, and mechanical properties, there were significant differences between the dosimetric and geometric properties of the three systems. This underscores the need for careful commissioning of each individual system for use in radiobiological experiments.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".